tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC July 5, 2011 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
ratigan. casey anthony, acquitted of killing caylee anthony. let's get to the courthouse. what can you tell us? >> reporter: hey, matt, incredibly surprising for everybody around the courthouse. now we've been pushed away from the court property, and i just want to share with you a little bit of the reactions the moment when they verdict was read. we were able to see it and hear it inside right here by the courthouse, with everybody who's been around here. let's hear people's opinions and then we'll get right back to you. >> that's a little girl's life -- >> not guilty? like -- like the o.j. case. it's ridiculous. >> like nothing. >> absolutely devastated. it's very sad. very sad day in america. >> i prefer to be life in prison and have to live with what she did.
>> reporter: this gives us an idea of the general sense, especially around here. of course i've been tweeting since the verdict came out and tweets along the same line. a great deal of surprise. i want to introduce you, talking a few minutes ago. you do not seem to concur with everybody else. you think this was fair and justice was served. can you tell us why, frank? >> well, i don't think they had enough proof. no evidence that actually proved that she murdered the child. they had evidence she might have moved the child. but no evidence that she murdered the child. >> reporter: no hard evidence. >> they had no idea how the child died. >> reporter: were you surprised by the verdict? did you expect them to -- >> no. i thought they were going to hang her, and i was pleasantly surprised. i love children. i'm sorry that this child died, but we have a constitution and
that constitution, it's our justice system. that everybody deserves to have a fair and decent trial. that means you have to prove somebody did something to convict them. you can't just feel it or think it. or know in your stomach. you have to prove it in a court of law. >> reporter: that certainly is what happened among the jurors, matt. we've been talking to people around here. everybody wanted to hear answers. people were waiting to hear from those jurors from the jury. they decided not to speak. none of us cathem came out. there's speculation whether they want it reach a deal, come out way book. anything is possible at this point. we have not seen their face, at least those of us who have been -- those in the courtroom have, but the public wanted to hear from jurors and have not been able to. how about you, ma'am, do you feel justice was served? >> absolutely not. a travesty of justice. she is a baby killer and there's a god up in heaven and she's not going to get away with it. she going to be killed. i don't know by whom --
>> reporter: do you want to see her get the death sentence. >> no. not the death sentence. but something, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. now she -- the poppop rauts pop rautssy going to get you. >> according to the charges she was convicted for, she might spend a few more months in jail and then come out. we'll follow jum on casey's life after that. back to you. >> lots of emotion and law nerves across the country. bring in nbc's legal correspondent savannah guthrie and jamey floyd. welcome, ladies. let me start with you, savannah. i must be the last man in america not following this case closely. were you surprised? >> well, you know, i think a lot of us thought the jurors would convict on something. everyone could see that the
prosecution had some weaknesses in the evidence that was presented, because there were these fundamental questions about when she died. how she died. and for a lot of -- >> seems pretty basic. >> it does. one could see how that could lead to reasonable doubt. there were an ray of charges. seven counts. everything from first-degree, murder down to the basic child of child abuse. so for the jurors to not convict on anything, i think i was surprised to see that. because while there were questions in terms of the forensics, how the child died, there were powerful pieces of evidence. in particular, the fact that casey anthony said her daughter died june 16th and she did not report it for 31 days is absolutely no grief, no remorse, carried on, gallivanted around orlando, and i thought jurors would look at that and say, we may not know what happened, but something happened here. you know, the law requires more
than that. that may be why we saw the verdict we saw. >> jamie? surprised? >> not surprised. even though we see the comments we just saw, that suggests a lack of faith in the jury system. all of my years covering only reinforced the jury's ability to dot right thing. why? they don't hear everything we hear as journalists and members of the public. they're sequestered from all that information. they get just what the judge determines is the evidence that they need to have. as savannah points out, where was the child murdered? how was the child murdered? what's the child murdered? the prosecution couldn't prove any of that. that was the ultimate question in the case. and as savannah points out, there was evidence she acted in ways no consistent with someone whose child had just died. behavior unbecoming of a grieving mother. >> she got a tattoo days later. >> and convicted of making false statements to the police, but none of that goes to the question of murder or
aggravated -- >> i was going to say, it's true, and we don't in this country convict people of having poor character or being terrible griever, but there was powerful evidence in terms of the smell of decomposition in it trunk of casey anthony's car. only one person had custody and control of that car. it was casey anthony and multiple witnesses including her own father and mother described it as absolutely reeking of this unmistakable stench of human decomposition. if jurors believed that evidence they have to ask themselves, well, wait a minute. what is she doing riding around with a dead body in the back of the car? so, look, the prosecutors, i thought, did not bungle the case. in fact, i think they were excellent lawyers. they tried the case very tightly, but they're only as good as the evidence they have, and unfortunately, this baby was not found until seven months after the crime. shep was completely skeletonized. couldn't do toxicologist. found no dna. a lot of the questions, or the
answers we wish we had are buried in that swamp in orlando. >> you can see already the reaction, folks we saw with lilia outside the courtroom, with twitter and on the web. people drawing analogies to the o.j. simpson trial. a lot of people feel that justice has not been served. >> amazing the reaction. talking about this quite a bit off camera. the reaction in the community there, across florida, across the country and even internationally to this case, and it's really hard to understand why so much passion is engendered mostly against casey anthony, but quite a bit in her favor as well. a lot of it has to do with the digital age. people are really invested in the case online, on twitter, on facebook. there's a whole community that's grown up talking about this case online. i think a lot of the passion is because the child was missing, and for 31 days, this mother took all of us on a wild goose chase and she's admitted that much. that's why she was convicted on those counts and then everyone became emotionally invested in the case and found out they'd
been lied to. right there, she starts being behind the eight ball and then, of course, the murder charges are filed. there's a real question, why this case, as the sheriff suggested and the states attorney, why this case and not all the other dead babies that are out there that don't create this kind of passion in the american public? and we'll probably never know the answer to that. >> it's interesting. what can we learn, savannah from the jurors? are there limits what they can talk about? will there be book deals before long? >> there could be. jurors are free to talk and free not to talk. so far they've elected not talk. the court hasn't actually set up a room to hold a press conference if they wanted to. the jurors decided not to do that. we were talking about that before. a lot of the trials we covered, that happens. initially the jurors are tight, cohesive, rendered this unanimous and don't want to talk to the media.
a few days pass and we hear more about the rationale. it's not our right to talk to the jurors. or know what they were thinking. their verdict stands on its own. but as a practical matter, we all wonder what they thought. >> as soon as one starts to talk, like a bob woodward novel. one or two. >> and the cat's out of the bag. sometimes jurors want to correct something other jurors, that unity kind of dissolves. a little bit. >> but i would just ask people, to, please, respect the jurors and the process, as some people have been saying on twitter today. we weren't in the jury room. most of us weren't even in the courtroom. and so while it is easy to criticize their verdict, we have to respect what they've been through. this has been an intensely difficult process for them. they have to live with this verdict for the rest of their lives. much more so than any of us do. so to threaten or question their verdict, even, i think is terribly unfair. >> just about one minute left. take us to the big picture
between the don 'nique strauss-kahn case, and everyone jumped to judgment about a character, unsavory, but may not be guilty of what he was charged with. is there a bigger constitutional lesson in this, savannah, about the presumption of innocence a day after july 4th we should take pride in? >> take pride in our jury system. the fact the prosecutors have to put on a case beyond a reasonable doubt and also something for people to consider is what your notion and concept of justice is. casey anthony was acquitted in a court of law, but i wonder about the life she'll have from now, and i think about another verdict, 15 years ago, people thought was a miscarriage of gist is, o.j. simpson. think about what happened to him in the years that followed. so we'll have to wait and see. i don't think this is the end of casey anthony's story. >> i think in both cases the system seems to have worked in that prosecutors were able to pursue the truth and in one case
you have an acquittal. the other case probably a dismiss when they can't make their case, but we have in both cases real efforts to prosecute by the facts put forth in the media and have to be very, very cage as the public not to prosecute people in the press but wait for cases to be prosecuted in a court of law. >> the last word for now. jami, savannah, the best conversation i had on this case in months. we're following a very busy hour here, live. more on the breaking news out of florida on the casey anthony verdict. we're waiting on live remarks from the president. in minutes he's expected to speak about current state of the debt talks. stay with us. announcer ] anan anthis...is the netwo. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪
casey anthony acquitted of killing her 2-year-old daughter. people across the states comparing it to o.j. simpson. did the prosecution not present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. with us, ann, let me start with you. what did you make of this verdict? were you surprised? >> i was and wasn't. i thought there would about compromise. didn't expect murder one. never expected death. an acquittal is not out of the question, because there was a lack of evidence. all around orlando, there's no proof, no case, everyone would say, right here. at the end of the day, the jury
did the right thing. i hate hearing the comparison to o.j., we can talk about it a later time, a different day. this jury heard the evidence. weren't trying the case in the media. they couldn't listen to the media and came to the decision base and what they heard in a court of law. >> meg, your take? >> same thing. i am surprised, because i really thought they'd come up with a compromise. between outright acquittal and death penalty. and the middle line there is second-degree murder. i'm surprised that they went straight across the board, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, on all those various different charges. like aggravated assault or second-degree, child abuse, anything. but legally, always said, a weak case. it hasn't had direct evidence to get the death penalty. i've always said 100% no way death penalty. but on the notion itself you could definitely get a guilty verdict of second degree. i'm surprised it's not guilty.
>> bring jami back in. the defense attorneys' performance, the defense team, this is a fellow not a big, well-known defense attorney before. a lot of people were thinking he had not done such a great job. but look at results. >> sometimes that a good thing. you want a people's lawyer. an every man in the courtroom. the question isn't does jose baez connect with all of us. the question, does he connect with the 12 people sitting in the box and the alter knits. clearly he did. the closing argument was impactful. i wasn't in the courtroom. by all accounts he connected with the jury and clearly by the verdict he did, too. he was also supported in this case by some of the finest lawyers in the country. cheney mason, dorothy simms. he knew -- >> who are those folks -- >> very, very fine lawyers. the death penalty lawyers. people who understand this kind of a case. who understand what's at stake. who understand how 20 tto try t
case, day in and day out. when we cover this case, we cover it in terms of wins and losses day by day, but you understand that in the end all that matters in the verdict. so i think jose baez was undersold in this case. i've interviewed him on several occasions, many of the people who criticized him has not. he believed in the innocence of his client. not just that he could get a not guilty verdict, but in the innocence. when the jury picks up on that, it makes all the difference in closing arguments. that compassion comes through and the jury feels that and they take that into the jury room. it's not more important than the evidence, but it's very, very important. >> ann, you agree with jami's take? >> i said before, we totally agree he's not a well-known attorney. the verdict is called not proven. it's not that your innocent, but not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. i know jose baez. very prepared, ready for the media and really did a nice job. he had the passion and he believed in this case all the way along, and at the end of the day he was gracious, even when setbacks, and supposedly jeff ashton was supposedly laughing during closing, he said, i don't want to see that happen again. he apologizes. he's taken a high road and come out way very gracious, i think, press conference at the end of this, as did the prosecutors. an interesting day today, but not the o.j. verdict. it's anything but. it tells us the media doesn't have a burden to prove. the courtrooms do. >> i was watching a few minutes ago on the air when you saw the sheriff and you saw the lesser prosecutor talking, almost surreal, with all the gracious thanks and congratulations to the team, sounded like a victory lap, even though it's got to be the most stuns tweet and most high pro file case of the decade. is that the kabuki dance they
have to go through? >> i'm surprised so gracious. i'm surprised they thanked so many people. they should have thanked their staff going through all of these days of trial, day in, day out. they're the ones that deserve the thanks. he thanked everybody else. but interesting that they were so gracious and whatnot. this really isn't like o.j. at all. remember, that it's been a while now. remember, the o.j. case, a different set of circumstances. a different set of facts. this case from the legal standpoint, the o.j. case was just different. also, that was four hours to return a verdict. they did deliberate a good 12, 13 hours here. a big difference. and i really hope that everyone understands, the evidence is what the jury listened to. that's it. and they had to weigh it and in florida they were able to take the jury charge in with them. to prepare it's jury charges with the compare, to compare
them. that's why they came up with the verdict they came up with. >> jami, consensus, not like o.j.? even though millions of americans seem to be, best we can judge by the early reaction, feel like this is o.j. -- >> o.j. analogy is utterly ridiculous. i covered the o.j. case. covered all the o.j. cases. i don't know, i should say i'm ashamed to admit, every single one, every single day. a completely different case. it would wake too long to go through all the reasons why. it's a completely different case in terms of the charges, the evidence. pt only similarity is, what? the verdict. people don't like it because that was a not guilty verdict and this is a not guilty verdict. that's the comparison being made. everything else about the case is different. look what i have learned in all of my years of covering cases is that people sit in a courtroom and it's like the old adage about the blind men and the elephant. people see different things depending on their perspective, point of view, vantage point in the courtroom and the jury sees it very differently as well.
she have to be very, very careful when we assess what we think we've seen sitting in the courtroom or watching at home on television and not watches at all and have an opinion anyway. right? when you talk to the jury, it always fascinates me they've seen the case entirely differently, from everyone else. it's amazing. i'm sure when we hear from this jury their opinion of jose baez will be different. their opinion of casey will be different. their opinion of the prosecution will be quite different and most of all their opinion of the evidence will be entirely different from what we as a country have taken in over the course of last six week. i hope we'll ultimately hear from the jury. we'll have a lot more respect for this jury than we've had in the last two hours. >> thank you all for that instant and incisive analysis. i wish i could say after the break we'll have a couple jurers from the trial, that's not the case. up ahead, a little bit of politics. ed the president of the united
states expected to come out in about 15 minutes taking about the latest status of the tense debt talks. stay here on msnbc. you're watching the "dylan ratigan show." mobile app. it's schwab at your fingertips wherever, whenever you want. one log in lets you monitor all of your balances and transfer between accounts, so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you. ben and his family live on this block. ben's a re/max agent, and he's a big part of this community. re/max agents know their markets, and they care enough to get to know you, too. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. visit remax.com today.
as we wait for the president at the white house briefing, let's talk about political fireworks that developed over the fourth of july weekend. strategists on both sides of the aisle, a radical shake-up for 2012. joe biden moving to secretary of defense ahillary clinton indicating she's not interested in another four years. and on the democratic ticket, new york governor andrew cuomo tapped to become president obama's running mates. that's what the former gop boss bill powers is predicting and he's not the first. former democratic mayor of san francisco willie brown who joins us in a minute propose the same idea not long ago.
brown said, he's a big name a big state governor and a democrat taking on the issue of public employee salaries and pensions, plus he looks good. cuomo just wrapped up his first six months as governor with a huge win for gay marriage. and seems lack in cuomo. the way he balanced with no tax hikes and fought for savings in medicaid and public pension opinions so is cuomo mania one of the latest confirmed rumors or is all the buzz proof that democrats know they need a jolt to boost obama's odds next year, given the dismal economy? joining us now, with a definitive answer, a man howho' seen ace share of rumors. also a columnist for the week. also from san francisco, the former mayor who likes the looks of willie brown. the looks of cuomo. sorry. willie brown, i know you like your own looks. let me talk with you, mayor. you floated this idea that seems to be getting traction.
what's the case for a cuomo replacing biden on the ticket? >> well, first and foremost, you should know i was a great supporter of his father and sorry on the tarmac of new york when he didn't get on a plane and go up to new hampshire back in 1992 and run for president. he's been out to california in his old days, supporting everything that we've didn't out here. i think his son is an appropriate and fitting person for the national ticket. i frankly thought initially that it would be 2016 before we would see mr. cuomo on the ticket. now with biden, and hillary exiting, not interested in the vice presidency, i think it's totally and completely natural, and i don't think it's the flavor of the month. it's the one component ever the weakness in the current administration's efforts to be re-elected, and that's to bring the young people back. bring the more thoughtful people
back on the independent side of the ledger and to bring the gay and lesbians back, and i think this will do it. >> what do you make of it? >> well, as usual, the mayor is provocative, a classic, lively and in this case i think he's wrong. i probably contributed to this because i wrote my column after the passage of marriage equality way headline, president cuomo. i wass talking 2016. no 2012. three reasons it won't happen. biden strengthens the president. in ohio and pennsylvania. blue collar voters and plays a critical role in policy. right in afghanistan and the architect who negotiatinged the deal on the budget and taxes in december. i think he's probably the single closest person now to the president. three, presidents in modern times don't do this. it's only been done twice. gerald ford did it and ended up with bob dole, who got on television and talked about democrat wars, and probably
shattered whatever chance ford had, and franklin roosevelt did it in 1944, but frankly could have run on a laundry ticket and gotten re-elected. i don't think it's going to happen. >> willie brown, bop schrum make as compelling case. do you have a case that trumps that? a case for governor cuomo? >> i would not suggest any circumstances that joe biden be pushed out. i think it's joe biden's option. if joe biden decides he wants to be secretary of state and hillary clinton leaves before the re-election process completes itself, then i think it will be necessary for biden and obama together to make a decision. and i think if they do make the decision it will be cuomo. i do not advocate dumping biden. my comment has always been that cuomo was 2016, which follows what schrum said. if, in fact, there's a vacancy
looming i think cuomo would appropriately fill that vacancy. >> bob, let's talk a little about cuomo's e-messaging pro file whatever may happen. a lot of coverage and energizing to the liberal base of the party, yet a lot of his kind thus far has been spent balancing the budget and drawing the line on no tax increase. talking medicaid, the highest spending state next to california. lots of fat and critics saying in the medicaid program, a traditional democratic constituency and came up with ways and to put the public pensions on a table ways more typically associated with the gop governors causing such a ruckus among the liberals. has he create add kind of clintonesque, occupy the entire political spectrum with his first six months? >> i reject the notion that it's centrist or triangulating. i think he's practical. the state didn't have the money.
the way he's done this, in my view, helps the middle class, putting a cap on property taxes. he has progressive critics if it's the right thing to do. not putting a surtax on people who make a lot of money, because there was grave concern about them leaving new york city. finding ways to balance the budget, and instead of bashing union, sitting down with them and negotiating concession. that's appealing to main stream aggressive, in the democratic party. even if he gets in trouble for example for reforms on medicaid. >> we've leave it there now. we'll watch this political rumor and see if it become as political fact in the months ahead. thanks bob schrum, thanks to mayor willie brown for your insights and provocations. coming up, more political antics as the deadline draws closer. the president expected in a white house briefing momentarily. our megapanel, after the break. my doctor told me calcium
busy, busy news day here on the d.r. show. president obama expected to extend an invitation for democrats and republicans to come to the white house and hammer out a deal. democrats speaking also on the hill. let's bring in the mega panel. karen finney. republican strategist susan and jimmy. let me start with you, not talking about casey anthony -- rumored it will be, asked a question. obviously the white house, you've been in these rooms. the white house made a decision to try and advance the negotiations and story by having the president come out today. what do you expect? a. couple of things. we saw coverage over the weekend and again this morning about some of the details leaking out
about potential, whether it's medicare and medicaid. what kind of things the republicans may be willing to accept and getting down to the point where the devil's going to be in the details. also it's going to be in the spin. we're at a point where you're starting to hear republicans say, maybe if we can clean up the tax code as opposed to calling it government spending or revenue. part of this is, what's is the political arguments that can be made or the political argument that can be put out there that gives both sides the cover they'll need with their bases? i think part of this is, who's going to get ahead of the spin? the white house obviously wants to get there first. >> can i tell you what i wish he would say? that republicans have voted for the paul ryan budget. adds over $5 trillion to the debt in the next decade. who on earth are they saying we don't have to raise it's debt limit? we're going to spook markets and threaten the global economic meltdown when they themselves just voted for $5 trillion in debt?
if this would go from my lips to his ears now, i feel that would change the whole debate. we're not going to hear that, i'm guessing. why not? >> you're outside the beltway. people inside the beltway can only listen to themselves. the vice president and the democratic leaders, they're meeting tore. the president had invited folks to the white house. they said, no. including democrats and republicans. then the democrats and republicans invited the president up to the him. he said no. and now the president's going to go on national tv and once again guilt the congressional leaders into actually doing something. a., that's good. b., the question is, what do they deal on? and why? because they're not close to august 2nd. until you get close to august 2nd, there's no deal. >> what we should be hoping to hear from the president, what his plan is. let him put out specifics? >> no, no. >> yes, he has. voted down 97-0. bipartisanly canned. >> yes. >> come out with a counter.
the republicans and democrats have to jump off the cliff together. at least he puts together a plan. now, they hate it, okay. but what do you have? and when it comes to revising the tax code, that is actually something that was in ryan's plan and something i think should be done. >> but then, this drives me crazy. the republican plan adds trillions and trillions of dollars to the debt. this hole thing is a farce. >> right. >> in an era of divided government, the thirst for a forcing device. the debt ceiling is the only forcing device available, and the idea, even the white house is playing games because the medicaid and medicare stuff they're talking about they put out a couple months ago in their revised budget. karen, i don't need to lecture you. >> you're totally right. you're saying the same thing as many others have. what were she to do and i know it's hard if you don't live inside the beltway to do this, put aside this really has anything to do about policy, what's good for the country, what's going to help the american people. i'm being sarcastic, but i'm serious.
i'm not. because, again, we're at the point where it's like a final step of negotiations where the points we're discussing are the kinds of points that really are about political cover. susan says she wants the president to come out way plan. we did that. that's been done. they had a plan. we had a plan. their plan adds to the debt ceiling, all that. where we are now, the point, we had negotiations are at a specific point, jimmy's right. until we get close up to august 2nd we're not getting a deal. we are going to get i think, as we talk about these finer points, trying to frame them in such a way that both sides can go back and sell it to their base. that is really what's going on here. >> but you know what's scary about this? jimmy, he's been raising his hand patiently. i've talked to senior officials in europe who say they're trying to talk to the banking community, business community, don't worry. this is make believe. at the end of the day, they're
going to raise the debt ceiling. you have a wing in the republican party. david brooks argued today in this op-ed, it may not be a normal party. are we really at risk of some kind of actually going up to the debt limit and forcing the president to do a constitutional option? i mean, even if they overt calamity, is this the height 20 what government has become now? success in america means we overt calamity versus renewing the nation? >> remind people of the '94 issues. this is not the first time we've done this. by the way, the democrats and republicans, when pubben e republicans have the senate and democrats, with president reagan, the same thing. look at the documents to show all of this, a big huge kabuki dance. republican dos not want to take vote after vote after vote on raising the debt ceiling. they don't. why? get primaried, slaughtered in the polls.
they've got a lot to lose. you have the admission. >> who doesn't want to be out there saying, on the tax increase. it is -- >> no, no. that's not the -- we're not supporting taxes -- >> on wealthy people. yeah. on wealthy people. >> susan, i said -- >> okay. i was saying i happen to agree with karen when it comes down to who's making the best political play out of this. are we like on the verge's calamity and how are we going to get -- who outmaneuvers their opponent better. >> i hate to school my colleagues at the table mgts school or scold? >> both. it's not the president. >> yes, you are. >> you're being schooled. >> it's not the president or the executive's branch's joob to determine spending. it's not. the constitution is clear. is the congress' job. the president's only job, negotiating what they can't figure out. >> come on. >> wait a second. >> he's at the table. >> at table, put out his budget.
>> send ip a state of union address? >> damn right i do. i want a weak exec fiv branch and a strong legislative branchts. >> i don't. >> i understand the washington theater. all seen that and understand that. i do feel the level of recklessness gets ratcheted up. talk about the debt obligations of the united states, i feel awful these lines, there used to be thing, oh, we wouldn't monkey with that. there's a certain line that needs to be drawn. make i'm wrong. in the '80s, reagan running up deficits. no one's going to run those. now we're talking, $2.5 trillion. >> you're right. each period the line is shifting. i went back and looked at, between '95 and '96. i swear to you, the headlines were almost exactly the same in terms of, there were budget talks. republicans walked away from talks. come back. the president lays down the plaup what's going to happen on the budget, on the deficit?
literally, you could do a side-by-side comparison. i think jimmy being naive in one republican, which is, i'm going to school you, my friend. there are politics here and the president does need to take the leadership role. which is exactly what he's doing, and say, okay. here's where we are, and here's where we need to get to. remember on both sides. the republican side, now the tea partiers are trying to push mcconnell into a balanced budget amendment he knows he doesn't have the votes for that. he's got to deal with that and republicans in the house know boehner's not getting a deal without them. their power increased, part of why they're back at the table. political forces are at play in all three areas and the president is the one trying to pull it together and say how are we going to make this into a deal we can all live with? >> call add weak executive branch that does nothing but negotiate with its own congress. that's his job. nothing more. >> how are we supposed to explain this to the children? i have a 14-year-old daughter.
you're supposed to say, rest easy? this is all -- >> no, no. >> it's a game that they go through. because that's what they need do. >> that's not what i'm saying. >> each party won't be honest what it would actually take to balance the budget or address these problems? we keep kicking the can down the road. are we going to raise the debt ceiling? sounds like a major achievement. >> the only person in washington sdhee can stop the can from being kicked down the road is the president of the united states, the only people that keep kicking the can down the road, i.e. increasing the debt limit, is the congress. i want -- i like a bully pulpit but not a powerful president. i want a powerful legislative branch. no. i want him to negotiate. >> the president is the leader of the democratic party. >> the leader of the united states. >> the country. i agree. >> anything about george bush, as much as that makes me vomit, i want to say exactly the same thing. by the way, i wanted a weak george bush a weak ronald
reagan. i want a weak next president. i want congress to do its job. >> that's what you want but what the american public wants and when you go to the -- >> they don't have a clue what the hell they want. they want casey anthony, for god's sake. >> they want the president of the united states out there. >> can i say something? >> all the bickering with congress, really doesn't matter. >> i'm appalled with jimmy he wants a stronger congress given that congress has acted like a bunch of baby. ed point matt was make. that is, the way that these guys, i agree, look, i hope there are strong political consequences for congress coming up in the 2012. specifically republicans. because it is the chill fact that we are sitting here having this conversation in july about playing chicken with the funds of the united states of america, is ridiculous. it is absolutely shameful. it's absolutely shameful on all sides. >> the partisan thing -- doesn't this all end up being a long
elaborate case why we need a third party? sometimes third, fourth, to hold both into account. >> no. get rid of money pb no republicans, democrats, policy ideas come to the top and that is what will be passed. >> oh, jimmy. >> oh, jimmy. we've only got about a minute until the president himself comes to the podium to settle this argument, perhaps. last word, quick, around it's horn. what are you looking for? briefly? >> looking for what the president offer in specifics. >> jpy? >> not his job to offer specifics. >> ken? >> i'm going to be looking for what the president talks about in terms of how we're going to move forward. yop think it's specifics. i think he's going to say, they're coming here we're going to meet. here's what we're trying to make happen. >> if we still got over a minute. talk more about it. >> wow! >> tell what you i'm looking for. i wish he would say, polarize the budgets, add over $5 trillion to the debt. american media take note and talk about that so that the republicans can stop pretending they've got a "solution on the
table" when they don't balance the budget until the 2030s. >> what will he do instead of that budget? >> the answer is yes. i surrendered hope for him -- >> oh, i have. >> and if he were -- >> in congress, i don't put my faith in congress. i put my faith in somehow coming up with what will shake this up. neither party with interest gripes and ideological lip mis tests are equal to the chang. they won't come clean. >> the majority of the american people are independent. >> with me. >> the next class, democrats. the lowest on the totem pole would be republicans. that party's out there. whyorganized? >> in all seriousness, step back and it is disconcerting we are this close to the brink and this is what it takes. >> all right, gentlemen, ladies. the president is speaking. -- on the deficit negotiations we've been having for the last several weeks and i
want to wish, again, everybody a happy fourth of july. over the july 4th weekend my team and i had a series of discussions with congressional leaders in both parties. we've made progress. and i believe that greater progress is with sight, but i don't want to fool anybody. we still have to work through some real differences. now, i've heard reports that there may be some in congress who want to do just enough to make sure that america avoids defaulting on our debt in the short term, but then wants to kick the can down the road when it comes to solving the larger problem of our deficit. i don't share that view. i don't think the american people sat up here, were sent up here to avoid tough problems. in fact what drives them nuts about washington, when both parties simply take the path of least resistance, and i don't want to do that here.
i believe that right now we've got a unique opportunity to do something big. to tackle our deficit in a way that forces or government to live with its means. that puts our economy on a stronger footing for the future, and still allows us to invest in that future. most of is already agreed that to truly solve our deficit problem we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade. and significantly more in the decades that follow. that's what the bipartisan fiscal commission said. that's the amount that i put forward in the framework i announced a few months ago. and that's around the same amount that republicans have put forward in their own plans. and that's the kind of substantial progress that we should be aiming for me. to get there, i believe we need a balanced approach. we freed to take on spending in domestic programs, in defense programs, in entitlement programs and we need to take on
spending in the tax code. spending on certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest of americans. this will require both parties to get out of our comfort zones, and both parties to agree on real compromise. i'm ready to do that. i believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that. and what i snow, that we need to come together over the next two weeks to reach a deal that reduces the deficit, and upholds the full faith and credit of the united states government, and the credit of the american people. that's why even as we continue discussions today and tomorrow, i've asked leaders of both parties and both houses of congress to come here to the white house on thursday so we can build on the work that's already been done and drive towards a final agreement. it's my hope that everybody's going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we'll all leave our political rhetoric at the door, and that we're going
to do what's best for our economy and do what's best for our people, and i want to emphasize, i've said this in my press conference. this should not come down to the last second. i think it's important for us to show the american people and their leaders that we can find common ground and solve our problems in a responsible way. we know that it's going to require tough decisions. i think it's better for us to make those tough decisions sooner rather than later. that's what the american people expect of us. that's why a healthy economy is going to require. that's the kind of progress that i expect to make. so i promise i will keep you guys updated as time goes on. all right? >> taking any question, mr. president? >> so -- that's it. that is -- you know, my own view of that, just heard the president of the united states giving his remarks. i don't think he definitely offered one new thought, except that we learned they are going to have the meeting that we talked about on thursday night.
i'm flabbergasted at what the objective of that was, except to -- karen -- i guess exert the impression of leadership and share the piece of the fire because there's a two-week deadline, in this view, for an actual deal? >> sure. we talked about it. it was for the president to say. there had been a process in place. they've got to come back to -- republicans walked away. we are where we are. he needs to be the one to bring everybody back together and negotiating the final point but also, yes, part of the goal here was to raise the stakes. he's right. it shouldn't come down to the wire of august 2nd. i think the president is the person using the bully pulpit, in the best position to kind of hold both sides accountable saying, we have work to do and we need sit down at this table and get it done. again it was never about, i didn't think at all, it was going to be about putting new ideas. the last thing we need, two weeks to go. we just need to get it done. >> the thing that sounds
disingenuous, susan, about his remarks. when he used the phrase, there are some who want to postpone this and kick the can down the road. that was code i think, for the kind of interim deal that would do a short-term debt ceiling indlees would have to be revisited again before the 2012 election. what obama was saying, he won't accept something, because he doesn't want to have to go through this again before the 2012 election. he doesn't want to go through it now. but he's trying to make that look like an exercise in leadership, because he's not kicking the can downed road like those other people want to. what do you make of it? >> good rhetoric. basically a bunch of good sound bites for the 5:00, 6:00 and 11:00 news. that's what we just saw. we saw him focus on trying to look good in politics. nothing more. >> are we too hard on presidents today? if abe lincoln were here in the middle of a tough negotiation over the civil war and had 24/7 media coverage, would the staff send him out to offer a few
remarks on the emancipation prock cla nation may be coming? >> the president said something very interesting. entitlement spending is on the table. no, no. republicans, you're going to be in my office on thursday. what are you going to offer? put up? what are you going to offer up? because, by the way, every single time i, the president, and the democrats say, we're going to put entitlement spending on the table and every single time the speaker of the house and republican leaders, mcconnell, say nothing on taxes. guess who that makes look reasonable and rational? the president of the united states. good for hill. by the way, i hope like hell, pray like hell, vote after vote, these people on capitol hill get their brains in their heads, step up and don't kick the can down the road. i said it before, i'll say it again. the only person that can stop that is the president of the united states. he just said it again.
so it's up to the republicans. he just flushed out the birds. i'd love to see him see shooting from damn birds. >> a piece of me assumes this is going down to the wire a deal announced and it will somehow work out. i remember a great book "the guns of august" about world war i that showed how, you know, just by mobilizing in weird ways and through a series of unintended consequences, kind of the world went over the brink. >> yeah. >> what -- am i wrong to have these secret views? >> no. interesting is the business community already said they can't wait until august 2nd. lots of parts of our economy are already having to have dual plans in place, because they don't have that luxury. i mean, so i think you're right to be concerned. i think there is reason, though, to be hopeful that cooler minds will prevail and we won't get ourselves into that situation, and also i have to say, i think getting to that situation would be a disaster for both parties. i mean, again, a lot of what we're seeing here only
reconfirms and re-establishes what people out in the country already feel, and that is that washington is so broken, we can't get anything done. i just have one our point. to your point, it's important that the president not try to break this up into two parts, because that, to me, also sounds like an excuse. like an excuse to say, well, i'm going to turn in my outline now and turn in the rest of my paper two weeks later. that's dangerous, again, you pointed out, this congress, give them more time. you don't get a better result. more rhetoric and more talking. >> susan, on the substantive level, so much i hate about the failsty and phoniness of everything going on now. it's a matter of looking at the political calculation of men and women who want to advance their hold on power. it is a kind of three dimensional chess going on. it's hard not to be fascinated by it at the same time, because you could make the case from the republican point of view, let's give them until the middle of
next year to focus on this, revisit it and focus that the president wants to raise taxes at the heart of the election campaign but way back, republicans have a risk if they spook it's markets too much they end up getting blamed. if dillon were here, watch the credit default on united states debts. if you see that spike you know markets are get antsy. >> at the same time, republicans have to be careful. they were sent to washington, 2010 was about doing something and getting the job done. right now it is hard for the republicans in congress, because there is a split. i think what they'll probably bring to the table is not a tax increase, but making people pay what they're supposed to in their taxes. looking at the taxes -- >> i.r.a. enforcement. >> ge should probably not pay zero, for example. to some. i don't think -- that's called raising taxes that could be a mistake some people decided to
take the pledge when the guidelines seemed to change. saying paying 14% but pay the total amount is not raising taxes. that's just enforcing and closing loopholes. >> it does. a minute left. it does mean that we have been preoccupied with this question that's going to dominate the national news it's neshl several weeks at least. the republicans decide to do a temporary debt ceiling increase, that's all they'll go for it will dominate the news through the election. this is why countries like china, india, are rising, singapore continues to improve it's world-class education system. all of these eother things that aren't addressed. don't command national attention. isn't this pathetic, jimmy? >> i late to break the news to people, since 1789 until now, this is how it works. come on, y'all. i have a little faith in our government and would like for the american people 20 have a little faith in the government. >> stay tuned. thank you karen, jimmy, thank you sus